Maiden's Money source
- Thread starter Mysterio
- Start date
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Merchandise. They made a brand out of Eddie. And merch wouldn't be sold if there weren't for tours.
Given that Maiden's stage productions indeed look very costly, and expensive to transport, I'm inclined to believe Rod (I know of many bands that say they make money only from the touring, but Maiden might indeed be different). The revenue from the tickets, no matter how high the prices may be, will probably do nothing else than keep the band on the road.
I don't know how important on-location-merchandise is, because I simply have no clue how many t-shirts the band sell on a gig. But at the end of the day, split by all involved parties, I don't think it will be very much, no matter how many t-shirts get sold.
I don't know how important on-location-merchandise is, because I simply have no clue how many t-shirts the band sell on a gig. But at the end of the day, split by all involved parties, I don't think it will be very much, no matter how many t-shirts get sold.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
I also think they financially secured themselves in the heyday of popularity (1982-1989). And judging by their apperance and behaviour, they aren't typical money-drunk rock stars. They're probably earning enough right now to keep life expenses at check, and have reserves from the golden years.
Well, if you read Run to the Hills, they do indeed suggest that, except for Adrian, the other band members invested in property and were cautious with their money. I'd say merch is the prime source of Maiden income currently, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rod lies about how much they make from a tour.
I think it was Run to the Hills. No, I can't elabourate more, because I'm at work. I'm sure I read that somewhere, though. I don't make crap like that up.
Yax
Ancient Mariner
Adrian Smith (translated back to English, since I only have the lousy Swedish version. Why didn't I buy the English one?) : "Nobody makes money out of touring. Not even Rolling Stonets. You're lucky if you just get around."
Foro: It says the band invested in property, though without specify what kind of property, and who bought what and so on) but Adrian and Clive didn't. Adrian just let the money stay on his bank account, and he didn't spend much of it, except for buying a lot of fancy/expensive dinners. The management took care of their bills anyway.
Loosey: Yep it's in Run to the Hills.
Foro: It says the band invested in property, though without specify what kind of property, and who bought what and so on) but Adrian and Clive didn't. Adrian just let the money stay on his bank account, and he didn't spend much of it, except for buying a lot of fancy/expensive dinners. The management took care of their bills anyway.
Loosey: Yep it's in Run to the Hills.
I'm not sure how the split works, but I'd give pretty good odds that those shirts don't cost more to make than, maybe, $3 at the most. They sell for, what, $40 on tour? Say, average of 5k people at a concert, and maybe, 50% buy a shirt, at even 20% of the retail price going into their pockets, thats (20% X $40 X 2500 per gigl)=$20,000 / 6 (members)= $3,300 per person. At even $4 per shirt (assuming the quantity sold per show was accurate) thats still around $1,600 per member per gig... 50 gigs would be 80k per member. Just on shirts. Granted, the math could be off....
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
I was just reading an article/interview with Maiden in a magazine, and in it Steve Harris says "We didn't want to just tour for the sake of making money" (regarding the most recent tour), which would suggest that they do in fact make money from touring.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Exactly. No offense to Adrian, after all his the musician, but if people didn't make money off of touring, why do old, washed up acts waste time on reunion tours? They don't put out new material or best ofs. Just say, "Oh it was great to get back with the guys and tour 50 cities..." Just for the hell of it? I doubt it, more like they needed to pay the mortgage and some alimony.
I read somewhere years ago that for most bands, the ticket revenues go to the venues and the promoters and the agents etc - not a penny to the band.
So the bands only get money from merch.
Don't know if this is true, but it makes some sense. A concert has lots of expenses - venue security and staff, insurance, power, etc - and what covers that if not the ticket price? Insurance in particular is reputedly very expensive for concerts, and I suspect most venue staff are union (at least in the US) so they don't come cheap either.
Maybe bands like the Stones who charge $200 for a ticket keep some of that money, since that sounds like an awful lot. But a $50 ticket... I can see that going entirely to the cost of putting on the show.
As for albums, it varies widely. I'd guess that an artist of Maiden's stature probably makes more than a dime per album sold - I suspect they get more like half a dollar, at least. But new artists are much worse off...
I don't know if it still works this way, but here's how it was up through the 90s. A band gets signed, and gets an advance payment.
And your papa says he knows that I don't have any money
Tell him this is his last chance to get his daughter in a fine romance
Because the record company, Rosie, just gave me a big advance
(Bruce Springsteen, "Rosalita")
But that isn't free money. "Advance" means the band owes the money back to the label. So they don't see another penny until their portion of the record sales pays off the advance.
So say an artist gets a $25,000 advance and their contract gives them 10 cents per album sold. For the first 250,000 sales, they're paying back the advance and don't get any more money.
Additionally, the record company will have invested more money in them for promotion etc.
That's why a gold record (500,000 sales in the US) used to be considered the record industry saying to the band: "Thanks for breaking even."
And why platinum albums matter - it's a sign that the band is finally making some real money.
As time goes on, if a band is successful (like Maiden), they can negotiate more points off albums sales - and turn down advances because they don't need the money right away.
So odds are Maiden gets more like 50 cents per sale... that's $500,000 per million albums. Rod probably takes 20% of that as his cut, and maybe more to pay for tours.
But each band member is earning tens of thousands of dollars for every million albums sold. They're comfortably well off, to say the least.
So the bands only get money from merch.
Don't know if this is true, but it makes some sense. A concert has lots of expenses - venue security and staff, insurance, power, etc - and what covers that if not the ticket price? Insurance in particular is reputedly very expensive for concerts, and I suspect most venue staff are union (at least in the US) so they don't come cheap either.
Maybe bands like the Stones who charge $200 for a ticket keep some of that money, since that sounds like an awful lot. But a $50 ticket... I can see that going entirely to the cost of putting on the show.
As for albums, it varies widely. I'd guess that an artist of Maiden's stature probably makes more than a dime per album sold - I suspect they get more like half a dollar, at least. But new artists are much worse off...
I don't know if it still works this way, but here's how it was up through the 90s. A band gets signed, and gets an advance payment.
And your papa says he knows that I don't have any money
Tell him this is his last chance to get his daughter in a fine romance
Because the record company, Rosie, just gave me a big advance
(Bruce Springsteen, "Rosalita")
But that isn't free money. "Advance" means the band owes the money back to the label. So they don't see another penny until their portion of the record sales pays off the advance.
So say an artist gets a $25,000 advance and their contract gives them 10 cents per album sold. For the first 250,000 sales, they're paying back the advance and don't get any more money.
Additionally, the record company will have invested more money in them for promotion etc.
That's why a gold record (500,000 sales in the US) used to be considered the record industry saying to the band: "Thanks for breaking even."
And why platinum albums matter - it's a sign that the band is finally making some real money.
As time goes on, if a band is successful (like Maiden), they can negotiate more points off albums sales - and turn down advances because they don't need the money right away.
So odds are Maiden gets more like 50 cents per sale... that's $500,000 per million albums. Rod probably takes 20% of that as his cut, and maybe more to pay for tours.
But each band member is earning tens of thousands of dollars for every million albums sold. They're comfortably well off, to say the least.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
If you think Iron Maiden didn't make a ton of money on this tour, you're crazy. It used to be that bands toured to sell albums. That's often still the case, as there is still plenty of money to be made in CD sales and downloads, notwithstanding all the illegal downloading. These days, bands make lots and lots of money touring. You don't sell out entire soccer stadiums without making out very well financially. Iron Maiden certainly could have made more money than they did -- they could have charged $150 per ticket instead of $60 -- but I don't buy the notion that touring is a money-losing, or even a break-even, proposition. All that said, I agree that merchandise is a big, big part of the band's income. So are catalog sales. They probably get sizable royalty checks every quarter for albums they recorded 20-25 years ago, as people are still buying those CDs, and all expenses attributed to those titles were recouped a long, long time ago. Finally, as is the case with almost everyone who wisely invests his wealth early in life, most of their net worth is probably attributed to capital gains on their investments rather than new income from touring, record sales or merchandising.
EDIT: To SMX's point about artist advances, that's still the case, even for big-time artists. The difference, though, is that the advances are much, much bigger. Note the $100+ million record/touring deals signed by artists like U2, Madonna, Michael Jackson and Jay-Z. I used to represent PolyGram Records when it still existed, and believe me, U2 never got a single royalty from albums like Pop or Zooropa, because they signed a huge deal (after Achtung Baby, I believe) that never got recouped and ended up being a huge disappointment for the record company. Still, people sign established acts to very lucrative extensions, and if they are negotiated aggressively by the artist's lawyer, the advance may be more than the total royalties, even on successful albums. Allen Grubman, one of the most powerful music attorneys in the world, has been known to say (I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close): "If my clients ever see a penny in royalties, I haven't done my job." Meaning, the advance he negotiated was too small.
EDIT: To SMX's point about artist advances, that's still the case, even for big-time artists. The difference, though, is that the advances are much, much bigger. Note the $100+ million record/touring deals signed by artists like U2, Madonna, Michael Jackson and Jay-Z. I used to represent PolyGram Records when it still existed, and believe me, U2 never got a single royalty from albums like Pop or Zooropa, because they signed a huge deal (after Achtung Baby, I believe) that never got recouped and ended up being a huge disappointment for the record company. Still, people sign established acts to very lucrative extensions, and if they are negotiated aggressively by the artist's lawyer, the advance may be more than the total royalties, even on successful albums. Allen Grubman, one of the most powerful music attorneys in the world, has been known to say (I'm paraphrasing, but this is pretty close): "If my clients ever see a penny in royalties, I haven't done my job." Meaning, the advance he negotiated was too small.
If I recall correctly, Maiden took one advance back when the deal was signed, and that was it. But its all in RttH, so read that for Maiden's strategy. Steve's said before that the band won't be able to live off of royalties so I expect they've all put together some form of RRSP.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Iron Maiden recently signed a new deal with EMI, which no doubt covers catalog sales, too. (Though, before that, didn't AMOLAD came out on Sanctuary Records?) There is no way that Iron Maiden was operating on one record deal since 1980 -- such deals usually only cover seven albums at most. Also, if you go on EMI's website, it appears to conclusively answer the question that was discussed in an earlier thread about how many albums Iron Maiden has sold. The answer is roughly 70 million: http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2007/press123.htmLooseCannon said:
"Signed to EMI Records in November 1979, Iron Maiden quickly became one of the biggest rock bands in the world and have gone on to sell some 70 million albums including three No 1 and 15 Top 10 albums in the UK alone."
Thus, Iron Maiden doesn't have to worry about money.